I don't have a lot to say about this book that I didn't say about the first issue, but I do like it for my seven-year-old, which got me thinking about just what it is that makes modern comics not as kid-friendly as the ones that were around when I was growing up. (And I'm not being critical of the trend--as an adult comic reader, which I gather puts me in the core audience now, I really can't be. There was always plenty of subtle/implied "adult-ish" content in comics in the old days. I recall an Iron Man book where Tony Stark is in a bathrobe in some woman's apartment in the morning, saying to himself how it was nice of her to let him sleep on her couch!)
Yes, the stories now are more violent. This is more of an issue for the younger kid, although there are some stories the older one isn't allowed either (I recall a Batman mini-series featuring a villain who went the "Buffalo Bill" route, that one was off-limits.)
Yes, there's more sexual content, although nothing explicit--and this seems to be what folks complain about most when comparing modern books to "the good old days", as in a recent Captain America where Cap and Sharon share a hotel bed, and fans write in complaining that Cap would never do such a thing.
Yes, there's more "bad language," mostly limited to "hell" and "damn" (my main problem here is why have all the New Avengers taken to "Hell is going on here?" as a full sentence--grammar still applies, people!).
Where I think the biggest difference lies, though, is in the grey areas of characterization. When I was a kid, there were good guys and bad guys, and although the bad guys could on occasion convert (or display a "heart of gold" under their evil exterior), the good guys generally stayed "good" at all times. Teammates might argue or even fight, but when the chips were down, you knew that each member could count on all the others. (Please note that I'm not being nostalgic for the simple old days, I prefer a more complex comic-book world, I'm just making a point.)
And that's also one of the main things I notice as different in the Marvel Adventures Avengers. (Side note, do the "Marvel Adventures" titles constitute a separate "universe" as well?) In this issue, the Leader tries to trick the Hulk, but it doesn't work because the Hulk trusts Spider-Man and knows that he has his best interests in mind. Now, I may not be a Hulk reader, but I do know that his history has made him very quick to mistrust--this certainty that your friends have your back would be out of character for the 616 Hulk, even back in the old days (he didn't stay in the Avengers for long, you'll recall). Here, though, there is what's really a very child-like focus on being able to trust one's friends--on having friends, which, here, Hulk trusts that he does. The possibility of a genuine team betrayal is never considered.
As for the the violence, that's also toned down quite a bit--to quote the MA Captain America, "Wolverine, I think you're forgetting our no-clawing-living-things rule." So it's made clear that even though there's fighting going on, these Avengers make a point of limiting the severity of the damage they do. Which, I suppose, isn't all new (they have always dealt heashly with team members who have killed, even accidentally) but it's new to have it so explicitly stated. (And is in direct contradiction to the reasons why Wolverine is on the 616 team in the first place.)
No comments:
Post a Comment